Jump to content

Need some help with a gpu for a new pc

Thehunteroftruth

Recommended Posts

Thehunteroftruth

Thehunteroftruth

Posted
Posted

Hi guys! First of all I'm not sure if this is the right section to post this. Anyways I'm about to build a new pc but I'm currently undecided about the gpu. The two cards I'm considering are the 970 and 390. They have a similar price in my country. Which one should I get? Thanks in advance for help ^^

RitualClarity

RitualClarity

Posted
Posted

 

Maybe that might help without being partial to one or the other (I have a GTX970)

 

There is also a GPU boss site to compare stats...

 

But bottom line between the two is:

  • does it meet your requirements for the game you intend on playing now and 2 or 3 years in the future
  • preference between AMD or Nvidia.

I don't know how it is in your country but the 980 and I believe the AMD comparable card is dropping and might have a chance to get an upgrade to these cards in the Christmas Season.

CGi

CGi

Posted
Posted

Just to have it mentioned: The R9 390 is a slightly optimized R9 290 which has great drivers for Linux (SteamOS f.e.). Newer ATis are (atm.) outdone by nVidia on Linux.
 

The major point for a decission that i see, assuming you want the card primarily for gaming, is that FO4 utilizes nVidia GameWorks, so even if you don't use all it's shaders or TXX/MXX, this might be a point for you to decide for the 970.

if you want the GPU to do math calcs and other OpenCL based stuff as well, then go with the R9 390.

if you don't care about any of those things, then let the price decide.

 

 

P.s.: Be aware that the 390 may outrun an 970 in alot of cases, but you better have a good case to keep it cool or it throttles and then you might be better of with the 970.

bjornk

bjornk

Posted
Posted

Well, to me, the 970 is a faulty product, but I've also heard many complaints about AMD 290 series (390 is a rebrand) and their throttling when the cards get hot. So, if you live in a relatively cold country and have a case with good airflow, then get a 390 (8GB VRAM is preferable) otherwise try to get a 980.

 

CGi

CGi

Posted
Posted

Always best to get the best product (not counting dual GPU cards) like 290/390 or 890/990, as those usually support the full (or at least most of it) DX instrution set in hardware.

This gives better frametimes, a more constant framerate and it ofc takes load off the CPU.

To get a full DX caps hardware implementation on nVidia, you'll have to go Titan.

 

And what i forgot to mention and might be a very good argument for buying now:
Only ATi supports the full DX12 instruction set and it's parallel processing. nVidia will get this with the Pascal chip.

The release of those will lower the price for the 990 (f.e.) but you'll still have a bad DX12 card.

Not a valid argument for OpenGL and Linux with OpenGL, as then the 970 or newer will do just fine.

Vulcan for Linux will turn the tables again and i guess in favor for AMD... but don't take my word for it, as it's just an educated guess.

Thehunteroftruth

Thehunteroftruth

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for replies ^^ . I have no preferences between amd or nvidia since I never had a pc till now. In my country both 970 and 390 cost the same price. I'm mainly interested in gaming at moment so I would like to get the best for that task. My country is not too cold but in Summer it Can raise past 35 ºand in winter it's almost never below 10 º C. My budget is around 300 euro.

CGi

CGi

Posted
Posted

Save for the 990 then or if the card is supposed to last a while, wait for the next nVidia generation to be released so it covers DX12 by more then just "renders on it".
As a sole gamer (that maybe comes from a console), you won't get much out of an ATi card, except wishing you had an nVidia b/c the game you play utilized nVidia stuff or simply because the ATi throttles due to bad cooling.

The only plus for ATi is that the cards that you can buy now will last longer then anything nVidia has to offer at the moment due to full DX12 support and the upcoming Vulcan APi on Linux. But then again: Might not be fully true for the 3xx series as i skipped it.

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

@@CGi: I think when you speak about 890 or 790, for nVidia cards you are speaking about the GTX 980 and 970 series... (Of course I can be wrong.)

@@bjornk: Yes 970 is not really a good card for the price. I bought a while ago a 960 and not a 970 just because of this. And I am not yet decided on the upgrade because all my games (very little in my portfolio to be honest) go full FPS.

 

bjornk

bjornk

Posted
Posted

@@CGi: I think when you speak about 890 or 790, for nVidia cards you are speaking about the GTX 980 and 970 series... (Of course I can be wrong.)

He's "Tha Grandmasta of all Typos". :D
bjornk

bjornk

Posted
Posted

Is the vram of the 390 really not important?

 

Well, there are a few recent (that I know of) games that can benefit from having more VRAM (6GB+), such as Shadow of Mordor and GTA V. If you want the card to be slightly more future-proof, you can go for the 8GB version if your budget allows. 

Thehunteroftruth

Thehunteroftruth

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Is the vram of the 390 really not important?

 

Well, there are a few recent (that I know of) games that can benefit from having more VRAM (6GB+), such as Shadow of Mordor and GTA V. If you want the card to be slightly more future-proof, you can go for the 8GB version if your budget allows. 

 

To be honest there is no price difference between the 390 8gb and the 970 here, so i'ts just a matter of which one is better.

bjornk

bjornk

Posted
Posted

The performance of these cards varies from game to game, even driver to driver. I'd check the reviews on the Net that include benchmarks for the games you're interested in. If there was a clear winner we'd recommend you that one. If you can't get a 980, neither the 970 nor the 390 would be a bad choice. Just try not to buy one with the reference cooler.

Thehunteroftruth

Thehunteroftruth

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Check this: http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-390-vs-GeForce-GTX-970

Looking at the specs comparison the radeon is better. But be sure your PC case has a really good airflow.

I have this case in mind. I'm not sure if it is any good with this card but it's cheap. It's called lc power gaming 975. I also found the psu of the same brand at 650w. Will this be enough?

 

 

The performance of these cards varies from game to game, even driver to driver. I'd check the reviews on the Net that include benchmarks for the games you're interested in. If there was a clear winner we'd recommend you that one. If you can't get a 980, neither the 970 nor the 390 would be a bad choice. Just try not to buy one with the reference cooler.

I'm mostly interested in open world moddable games with some mods, like the bethesda ones, gta, metal gear and the witcher. Which one is better for modded skyrim by the way?

RitualClarity

RitualClarity

Posted
Posted

 

Is the vram of the 390 really not important?

 

Well, there are a few recent (that I know of) games that can benefit from having more VRAM (6GB+), such as Shadow of Mordor and GTA V. If you want the card to be slightly more future-proof, you can go for the 8GB version if your budget allows. 

 

 

I think Shadow of Mordor is awesome even with 2 gig VRAM from an old GTX670 (what I used during that time of playing now have a 970).

 

The larger VRAM would help with larger textures packs, which might depending on your setup make for a more detailed game (texture wise.) If you have 1080 monitors then it won't do as much. Mostly useful for larger monitors/resolutions.

 

bjornk

bjornk

Posted
Posted

It's not just the ability to use hires textures though, more VRAM allows you to unlock some advanced graphics settings as well. In GTA V, in order to enable certain graphics options you need to have plenty of VRAM for instance.

BlueLight

BlueLight

Posted
Posted

It's not just the ability to use hires textures though, more VRAM allows you to unlock some advanced graphics settings as well. In GTA V, in order to enable certain graphics options you need to have plenty of VRAM for instance.

 

If they were locking off content based on your ram, I'd be shocked if this is the case. The GTX 970 from a pure hardware standpoint has 4GB of VRam. It would require them to use a more obscure detection mode for the ram. A game really shouldn't be limiting your options based on your graphics card. Just try a option and see if your FPS tanks.

 

but if we're talking about the card's ability to use those settings that's an entirely different story. Yes the GTX 970 is crippled by 3.5gb limitation. If your using a single graphics card, it is unlikely that you'll hit that cap. the raw horse power of the card is likely to limit you before the VRam from what i've been told and experienced. If you use SLI configuration then you might run into a problem. I've heard about the VRam being a bottle neck when a feature is used that basically renders the image larger than your screen and downsample it. I don't remember what it's called. Not to confuse this with setting your resolution to 4k on a 1080p monitor. It's the same concept.

 

Basically the GTX 970 will take nearly anything you can throw at it. While you will not be able to set ultra on every game, most games you will be able to max out. I even play several games at 4k resolution maxed out like Skyrim(honestly that's not impressive). I would however recommend the AMD card. In general AMD seems like the better company from a customer point of view.

CGi

CGi

Posted
Posted

My 2 cents about the VRAM discussion:
With the bandwith nVidia has and the 390 offers, more then 4GB VRAM is a waste and if you manage to utilize more then 3GB you'll run into performance problems anyway.
if you (for unknown reason) need more then 4GB, then your only option at the moment are graphic cards with HBM memory, like the R9 Fury.

Honestly: What's more important then VRAM is its speed, because what's a Titan with 12GB worth, if it runs into bottlenecks and GPU limitations after filling half of it? And ofc the same with other badly balanced cards, like the 390 adressing 8GB VRAM with its 384bit bandwith plain wrong as it seems to use HBM... my fault.

Conclusion: if you can say that your PC case can keep an 390 cool enough, then its the better coice over a 970. Or you save for an 990, which i recommend for you as you seem to be new to the whole stuff. Because then you can at least enable stuff in games that use the nVidia GameWorks framework, like Fallout 4 and Witcher 3. Your game may stutter, but at least you have the freedom to try - not possible on ATi. i use a ATi at the moment and am actually thinkin to get an nVidia b/c of FO4 but can't be arsed atm as nVidias AA is so terrible.

afa

afa

Posted
Posted

I can't imagine the heat issue with 390 is that bad depending on which after market cooler you end up with.

I have a 390x at the moment the temperature is ok.

 

If you care for FO4, wait a few days for benchmarks.

If I recall correctly Witcher 3 favors nvidia slightly, but depending on your resolution which is where vram usually comes in things might change ever so slightly.

Metal Gear doesn't matter, either should serve you fine

I don't remember off the top of my head which one GTA favors

 

For Skyrim that varies base on your vram usage, 4gb really isn't that hard to hit with high res textures and 970 will run into the 3.5gb issue.

But nvidia typically has an easier time with ENB

There's no clear winner.

 

390 "generally" has better price:performance in most benchmarks but who knows what will happen further down the line.

 

Unless you really need an upgrade now I would say wait for news of next generation of hardware.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...